It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I enjoyed TSWLM a tad more though. The locations, cinematography and ratio are also more cinematic, so seems to me that that one is just a film that is better suited to a cinema experience.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/goldfinger_premiere
or this:
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/tswlm-premiere
considering I'm not very good with crowds, I'd have to be one of the attendees, as otherwise I wouldn't even notice what was going on, trying to get away from the masses as quickly as possible.
But as an attendee, I really don't know. The film experience itself, I think, has TSWLM on edge, especially with the parashute jump, something that even impressed my better-yet-not-interested-in-Bond-half.
If I'd have time to look around further, and perhaps alter some small bits in history, I'd definately cross the pond, buy some left-over warsurplus still on the market and park some unique WW@ aircraft in a barn, to collect them in this day and age (notably, a newzealander has done so, and has given us the only airworthy Mosquito. Just saying!), so it'd have to be 1964. Can I stick around for Thunderball as well?
It was hard to keep track
(source: https://www.realtime1960s.com/post/goldfinger-london-premiere-draws-huge-crowds)
I think ITV were probably broadcasting them by the time of TSWLM.
To be honest, I think it comes down to which film I prefer. I'll go TSWLM as I prefer it (although both are great) and I'd love to see the audience reaction to the parachute jump.
Dalton's a pro. There's a reason he's still working. He may even have the longest career of all the Bonds?
Then definately 1964! When I'm 80 I can go an visit my parents to see myself beeing born!
Lets pose about time travel question to see what we would rather experience.
Would you rather time travel back to 1953 and be there when Fleming writes Casino Royale at Goldeneye Or jump to 2053 and see what the state of James Bond is like?
In one case you are there when history is made. A wonderful spot in Jamaica and you'd get a chance to meet or at least see Ian as he pens the first adventure.
On the other hand you get to jump into the future to see what happens to the franchise. You'd get to see who is playing James Bond 28 years in the future. Maybe there has been at least one film put out by then? LOL!
Which one would you rather do?
History in the making. Also I love that particular decade regardless.
Most definitely 1953.
Funny, Anthony Burgess said the same thing about his second book of his autobiography: he said it was a challenge to make it interesting as it is boring watching a man writing.
That said, I loooove the creative process, so I'll be dying to see how Ian Fleming worked on his debut novel.
- Sent from my Neuralink Corp. brainmail
Ian Fleming.....Hmmmm, as much as I'd liked to see the man himself, in actual, I doubt he would even entertain me, he's living like some sort of reclusive in those days, I know the past already, I know the history, I could watch them in documentaries and in his archived interviews, so I'm interested in seeing Bond's future.
I choose 1953.
It's a time travel mate, so you're alive in 2053.....🙂
But I prefer to see it without using the time machine ;)
it was quite a year, and I'm not sure I'd be too keen to see much of it, but I guess sitting in Glodeneye would leave all that misery behind, and an interview with Ian, If I'd manage (I'd just introduce myself as an agent of the future, and proof it by predicting what would happen in the next few days) would be fascinating. But staying there, nope, no, not at all. (still hiding some aeroplanes from ww2 surplus in a barn though).
2053 I hope to see without time travel. Interestingly, it would have to be 'a version' of the future, for I'd definately go back afterwards and change anything in my personal life that I don't liek the outcome of.
Perhaps it's safer to stich to 1953.